Section 65B of the Income Tax Act
The decision most relied on for Section 65B is Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (7 SCC 1), cited in 183 of the 329 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 65B
Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records as evidence, including WhatsApp chats and statements recorded under Section 132(4), to ensure their source and authenticity. If a person cannot obtain the certificate despite efforts, they can apply to the court for its production.
Electronic records are inadmissible in evidence unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Assessing Officer must provide the assessee with all material relied upon for an addition or disallowance and an opportunity to cross-examine deponents or witnesses whose statements form the basis of the assessment. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates natural justice and invalidates the addition or disallowance.
Evidence or material found during a search and seizure operation is admissible for assessment purposes, even if the search itself is subsequently held to be illegal or invalid.
For an electronic record to be admissible as evidence in income tax proceedings, all conditions prescribed under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, must be strictly fulfilled. The provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act and Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, operate in distinct fields regarding the admissibility of evidence.
A statement made voluntarily under Section 132(4) by an assessee is considered good evidence, but it is not conclusive and can be retracted under certain circumstances, such as if the statement was obtained involuntarily.
The validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 is judged solely by the reasons recorded, which cannot be supplemented or improved upon by any subsequent material or order rejecting objections.
When a property is vacant or the annual letting value (ALV) is not ascertainable, the ALV can be estimated at 8.5% of the construction cost or investment value. This estimation method is supported by case law, including ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd.
